Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Urn: Cw / 19582U / 2026Rahul vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:24042) on 18 May, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:24042]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10734/2026
Rahul S/o Bhaira Ram, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of I8Ndra
Colony Vistar, Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Medical
Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director (Non Gazatted), Medical And Health
Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Chief Medical And Health Officer (Cm And Ho),
Department Of Medical, Health And Family Welfare
Jodhpur.
4. Block Chief Medical Officer, Department Of Medical,
Health And Family Welfare Bhopalgarh Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Bumb
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanuj Jain
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
ORDER(Oral)
18/05/2026
1. The petitioner herein seeks issuance of a writ directing the respondents to grant him the benefit of study leave for the General Nursing and Midwifery (GNM) Training Course attended by him, along with all consequential benefits.
2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on compassionate grounds vide order dated 15.09.2015 passed by respondent no.1, consequent upon the death of his father, who was serving as a Grade-IV employee. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner joined (Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 02:59:14 PM) (Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 05:16:43 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:24042] (2 of 4) [CW-10734/2026] his duties on 24.09.2015 at Jodhpur and discharged his services. Upon successful completion of probation, he was granted regular pay-scale vide order dated 05.02.2018.
2.1 Thereafter, the respondent department issued an advertisement dated 14.02.2022 inviting applications for admission to the General Nursing and Midwifery (GNM) Training Course 2021-22. The petitioner applied for the said course and, having been found eligible, was granted admission at the Government General Nursing Training Center, Udaipur vide communication dated 29.03.2022. Consequently, the petitioner was relieved by the C.M.H.O., Bhopalgarh vide order dated 30.03.2022 for undergoing the aforesaid training. The petitioner successfully completed the GNM Diploma Course during the period 2022 to 2025. Since the said course falls within the ambit of higher/specialized training, the petitioner was entitled to study leave under Rules 109 to 112 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. Accordingly, the respondent department sanctioned study leave in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 12.05.2025.
2.2 Subsequently, vide order dated 03.07.2025, the respondents arbitrarily directed that the period undergone by the petitioner during training would be treated partly as unpaid leave, half-pay leave and earned leave, despite the earlier sanction of study leave. 2.3 Hence, this instant writ petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.
4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by a judgment rendered by a Jaipur Bench of this Court in the case titled Himmat Singh & Anr.
Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 02:59:14 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 05:16:43 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24042] (3 of 4) [CW-10734/2026]
No.17843/2015) decided on 30.11.2022, wherein it has been held as under:-
"This Court on bare perusal of the Rule 112 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 finds that the study leave is granted to Government servant to enable him to pursue the course of study and grant of study leave should be in the interest of working of the Department or the service to which Government Servant belongs.
This Court finds that if the study leave is in the interest of the working of the Department, then it cannot be said that the person, who is in Class-IV cadre and acquires qualification of GNM, the same would not be in the interest of working of the Department.
The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the Rule 112 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 also provides a condition that if the Government Servant wants study leave, it should be in the interest of the service to which Government servant belongs, this Court finds that if the Rule making authority has clearly demarcated two situations by giving benefit of study leave in the interest of the working of the Department as well as in the interest of service to which Government servant belongs plain and purposeful interpretation has to be made of such Rule.
The rule making authority has kept in mind that it is the working of the Department, which is benefited by virtue of acquiring higher qualification by the employee and as such the employee belonging to cadre of Class-IV cannot be presumed, to be not acquiring such course of study, which would ultimately not be in the interest of working of the Department.
This Court had occasion to consider the similar issue in the case of Dr. Sheikh Mohmmad Afzal (supra) and the relevant portion of the order is quoted hereunder:
"The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the candidate, if appointed in a particular stream, later on joins in Post-graduation in other stream and as such, the change of stream cannot be in benefit of the State, as when such candidate reverts back, he is appointed on the same post, this Court finds that if the Senior Demonstrator or Assistant Professor acquires higher education/Post-graduation in Medical Science, his/her study or knowledge cannot go waste and the same can always be used by the Government, considering the higher education acquired by such candidate. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the benefit, which was granted to the other candidates has been withdrawn or wrong orders if has been passed in past will not give right to the petitioners to claim benefit of study leave, this Court finds that the Rule making Authority once has provided in Rule 112 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 making a person entitled for grant of study leave in the interest of the working of the Department, such entitlement cannot be denied to the Government Servant."
5. On a Court query, counsel for the respondents does not controvert that on facts, the case of the petitioner is similar to Himmat Singh (supra).
6. Having perused the above judgment myself, I am of the view that case of the petitioner is covered therewith on all four squares. I see no (Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 02:59:14 PM) (Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 05:16:43 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:24042] (4 of 4) [CW-10734/2026] reason why the benefit of the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner be not given to the petitioner herein.
7. As an upshot, the instant petition is allowed in the same terms as judgment, ibid.
8. All pending application(s) stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J 86-Arjun/-
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 02:59:14 PM) (Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 05:16:43 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)